Centurian52

I don't think Battlefront has that kind of AI. The kind of AI that you feed training data to is called a neural network (because the data structures involved have a passing resemblance to a very basic understanding of how biological neurons work). A well designed neural network, fed a sufficient amount of training data, can do things like accurately identify hand-written letters, or guess which pictures are and are not pictures of bees. Very large neural networks, which are fed massive amounts of training data, are called deep-learning networks. Some well known deep-learning networks have gotten very good at specific tasks such as, in the case of chatGPT, convincingly mimicking human language. A neural network would probably not be the most efficient way to create a good wargaming AI. A neural net can't think multiple steps into the future. It can only make the decision with the lowest cost at this particular moment ("cost" in this context refers to the mathematical punishment/reward system that was used to train the AI). That works just fine for things like chatGPT, since all it takes to convincingly mimic human language is to respond appropriately to the most recent prompt. No memory of past prompts nor anticipation of future prompts is required. But a good tactical AI needs to do more than just anticipate the immediate consequences of a decision. It needs to be able to think several steps into the future. It needs to be able to plan. Neural networks (as they exist today) can't plan*. A better approach might be to do something like the General Staff: Black Powder AI. It analyzes the battlefield (using pre-programmed methods (if you watch the video the narrator mentions a spanning-tree algorithm used to calculate frontages), not training data), breaks the situation down into a series of logical statements, and then deduces which courses of action it should take. In the video I linked the General Staff AI was able to identify an exposed flank and assign a unit to conduct a flank attack. For something like Combat Mission the AI would, for example, need to have a concept of fire-superiority. It would need to recognize whether or not it had fire-superiority, and know not to attempt to advance without fire-superiority (that would stop a lot of AI lemming charges). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0K8DnS414o *Which is not to say that neural nets don't have some really exciting possible applications. They can be trained to be extremely good at recognizing objects, so they are ideal for tasks such as spotting and identifying targets. And they will do that way faster than any human ever could. But they will have an error rate, and they will be stumped by any object that wasn't in their training data, so we'll still want a human in the loop to approve/disapprove targeting decisions for at least the next few years until all the kinks are worked out. You could also send such systems into areas that are known to contain no friendly or neutral targets, allowing it to engage targets without waiting for human approval.

Well the good news on that front is that the year is almost over. So we're due for another New Year's bones thread in a couple months.

I've got to second @Anthony P. here. Boyd is not a source to be taken seriously. Same goes for Sprey and the rest of the reformer lot. If it turns out they've gotten something right about modern warfare, then it's more likely a "broken clock is right twice a day" sort of situation, than any real insight on their part. But in the interest of not straying too far off topic, does anyone have any details on how the ground operation is going? Looking at liveuamap it looks like the Israelis are cutting a path between Gaza city and Al-Mughraqa. Looks like a good path to isolate Gaza city without having to engage in too much urban fighting just yet. Last report is a few hours old so it's possible that they've already reached the coast by now. https://israelpalestine.liveuamap.com/

In the short term (next year or two) mainly I'm waiting for the CMCW BAOR module, the CMFB module bringing it to the end of the war, and the CMBN Battle Pack adding Utah Beach and Carentan. In the medium term (next several years) I'm hoping to see a Cold War module adding West and East German forces, WW2 modules/base games moving the clock back to earlier in the war, and a CMBS module or new base game adding all the equipment necessary to recreate the actual fighting of the Russo-Ukraine war. I would love to see them go straight back to the beginning of the war, with Poland 1939 and France 1940, as well as Barbarossa. But they've explained multiple time why that's not practical (too much new equipment would have to be modeled all at once), so I'm anticipating a more incremental move back. Perhaps the next game can turn the clock back as far as Tunisia 1943 for the western front titles, while either a module to Red Thunder or a new eastern front base game might roll the clock as far back as Kursk 1943. And of course, while the CMFB module will bring all the fronts up to the end of the war, that's no reason the clock can't keep incrementally inching forward. One reason why it might be a good idea to include the Pershing in the CMFB module (keeping in mind the more features and units we demand the longer we should expect to wait), even though it barely saw any action, is that it might help pave the way for a base game set in Korea later down the line. Ultimately what I'm really waiting for is for realistic wargames to cover every front of every real and hypothetical war from the dawn of time to the distant future. But my expectations are somewhat more modest than my ambitions.

I hope it has the Pershing. On the one hand, it might be difficult to justify including the Pershing since so few of the things ever actually saw action. On the other hand, getting to see the extreme early side of the Patton family of tanks in action would provide a nice link between the WW2 titles and CMCW.

The Canadians will have the Leopard 1. The A3 version I believe. So we'll be getting a good preview of some German equipment at least.

I understand the impatience. I really do. We all want our new toys sooner rather than later. But my day job is testing software, and I've dabbled in a bit of programming in the past. So please trust me when I say it's not a good idea to rush these things. Some bugs are harder to squash than others. Some features are harder to work in than expected, and will frequently cause new bugs. It's always better to wait for a good product than to get a rushed piece of garbage. There is plenty of Combat Mission already out to keep us busy in the mean time. I believe everyone at Battlefront is probably working diligently. Battlefront releases have always been slow. In part I expect that's a result of the limited resources they've always had to work with, and in part that's just because properly developing and testing any product takes time. But the releases have always come. We will get our new toys when they're ready.

Anyone want to risk guessing how long it will take? It's a small area, with an overwhelming balance of power in Israel's favor, both of which indicate a short operation. But it's also a very dense urban area, which pushes things back in the direction of being a long operation. For the fighting over the city of Gaza itself I'm gonna guess in the vicinity of 1-2 months. I expect to be wrong, but in which direction? My thinking is based on eyeballing a small sample of the first few urban battles that came to mind, which I jotted down in a text file: Falluja area: 30 sq km population: 250,000 1st battle defenders: 3,600 attackers: 2,200 relative strength: assymetric, favoring attacker length: 3 weeks 6 days outcome: defender victory 2nd battle defenders: 4,000 attackers: 13,350 relative strength: assymetric, favoring attacker length: 1 month, 2 weeks, 2 days outcome: attacker victory Stalingrad area: 859 sq km population: 900,000 defenders: 1,140,000 attackers: 820,000 relative strength: near-peer, favoring attacker length: 5 months 1 week 3 days outcome: defender victory Mariupol area: 64 sq km population: 446,000 defenders: 3,500-8,000 attackers: 14,000 relative strength: peer vs peer length: 2 months 3 weeks 5 days outcome: attacker victory From which I made the following guesses: Gaza area: 45 sq km population: 590,000 defenders: TBD, probably thousands or tens of thousands attackers: TBD, probably tens of thousands or over one hundred thousand relative strength: assymetric, favoring attacker length: TBD, probably 1-2 months outcome: TBD, probably attacker victory

The politics did get out of hand on a few occasions. But I think Steve has generally done a good job of moderating that thread. The only reason I'm not over there right now is that I've mostly given up on trying to keep up. I can only do so much reading in a day, and that quota is already mostly filled with ISW reports (I've got lots of doctrinal manuals and campaign studies that I'm also trying to get through).

Oh sweet Jesus I'm already planning on buying it, you don't have to keep selling it to me

Reinstalling all the CM games on a new computer can be a bit of a pain. I've slowly started getting and activating Steam keys for all my games specifically for this reason. Though I have an external hard drive with folders for each of my CM games, since I'm not entirely sure if I can trust Steam to keep track of all of the mods and non-official scenarios I have from one PC to the next (can anyone who's gotten a new PC since getting the Steam version of a CM game confirm that the Steam cloud reliably keeps track of all of this?). The downside to going all in on Steam is that it will tie me to the Slitherine release schedule, so I won't get new modules and battle packs as soon as they're released by Battlefront. But that's why I haven't uninstalled any of the non-Steam versions of my CM games just yet (so I currently have two versions of most of my CM games).

Fair enough. But keep in mind that modules are also adding new units, models, and formations.

You're not mistaken. We did get cluster munitions with CW. Though I generally thought of that as more of a new type of unit than a feature.

What sort of features come with base games? The new features that come to my mind generally come with engine upgrades.

Ok, but Fire and Rubble was a module, not a Battle Pack. Battle Packs only add new scenarios and campaigns using the existing resources of the game. Modules create new resources, and are about as much work as a new game (all base games are running on the same engine, so neither modules nor base games have to create a game engine). All else being equal you would expect Battle Packs to be done faster than modules and base games*. But there is no reason to expect modules to be done faster than base games. *Though, as was pointed out a few pages back, all else isn't equal. The teams who work on Battle Packs are made up of members of the community, not direct Battlefront employees. So they have day jobs interfering with work.

Modules are about the same size as base games in terms of the amount of content (new scenarios/campaigns and new equipment/formations). About the only differences between a new module and a new base game is that a new module doesn't involve installing a new application on your computer, and the new content will be thematically related to the base game it's a module for.

Development takes time and Battlefront is a small company, so you've got to think on a scale of years, not months. We got two big releases in 2021 (CMCW and the Fire and Rubble module for CMRT). 2022 was mostly lost to PBEM++ development, though we would have gotten a module for CMBS if the war hadn't broken out (current events robbed us of the content, but the work had clearly been done). Basically the only data point for the alleged lack of gum chewing is that none of the projects that were announced at the beginning of 2023 have been released yet. But sometimes work on a project goes slower than expected (and I don't recall any release dates being promised on those). I'd advise patience. I think there's a very good chance that we'll be getting new content in 2024 (and 2023 isn't over yet). If we get nothing in 2024 then it might be fair to start complaining a little more.

Don't most of the Israeli Merkavas have Trophy? CMBS teased that hard-kill APS was going to be a prominent feature of ground warfare in the near-future. But APS have been mostly absent from the fighting in Ukraine. Assuming there's a ground invasion of the Gaza strip we might finally be able to start getting a significant number of data points for how well these kind of APS systems perform in real combat, and what sort of countermeasures work well against them (salvoing two or more missiles so the second hits before the APS can reset, and degradation fire with autocannons to destroy the APS are two countermeasures I've already heard suggested). I'm guessing that APS will significantly improve a tank's survivability, but that effective counters to the APS will be found which will mean that tanks will remain (as always) far from invincible. I've already seen one drone video of a grenade being dropped onto a Merkava. The video didn't show clearly that the tank had been destroyed (despite the caption claiming that the tank had been destroyed), but I bet any subsystems on the roof of the tank (such as the APS) would have been seriously degraded.

A mod for what? Sure, you might be able to find most of the Soviet equipment in CMSF2. But almost all of the American equipment has never been seen before in any Combat Mission title. Just how unique does a base game have to be? Are all the WW2 titles mods for each other?

No I'm talking about official Battlefront content, not the community (though I'm not worried about the community abandoning WW2 either). There is no reason for us to be worried about WW2 content being abandoned by BFC. Base game releases make far too small of a sample size to really judge where their main focus is from them alone. But even going by base game releases there is no indication of a switch to a modern focus. I would certainly hesitate to call the most recent base game, CMCW, a modern title (it's only "modern" in the sense that it's more recent than WW2). And the next most recent base game to be released was CMFB. There hasn't been a truly modern title since CMBS, and that hasn't even gotten a single module or Battle Pack released yet (though there is a finished module standing by for the war to end). But most official Combat Mission content comes in the form of modules and Battle Packs to existing base games, which gives us a much more useful sample size to work with. And from that it seems pretty clear that they are still very much interested in WW2. The Fire and Rubble module for CMRT was released at approximately the same time that CMCW was released. Of the four projects that were announced at the beginning of this very thread, one was a module for CMCW, but the other three were all for WW2 titles. A module for CMFB, and Battle Packs for CMBN and CMFI. I don't know where or when the next base game will be set (though they announced a while back that it's going to be a while until they do more base games, since they want to get modules out for all existing games). I would offer a low confidence guess (say, 60% probability) that it is probably going to be WW2 (historically BFC tends to do more WW2 content than content for any other era). The current suite of modules will bring all the fronts up to the end of the war, so it should finally be about time to start rolling the clock back to earlier in the war by the time they do another base game (Perhaps Kursk or Tunisia 1943). But I definitely won't complain if it's a modern title (there are both current and potential near future conflicts that are worth covering). I really don't have a strong preference for any one era. For me a big part of the Combat Mission experience comes from playing all the games, set across all the eras that have been covered so far (WW2, Cold War, and modern), to get a sense for how warfare has changed over time.

I seriously doubt that we need to worry about the WW2 content getting abandoned

Is the choice of Forum optimal? Probably not. Does it really matter enough to keep derailing the discussion? Definitely not.

I'm still catching up with a backlog of ISW reports, so I don't have the latest just yet (I'm now reading their Ukraine-Russia, China-Taiwan, and their Iran updates). But they have started covering the Israel-Hamas war in their daily Iran updates. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-october-23-2023

It occurs to me that it might not be such a bad thing if the CMBN Battle Pack is still a little ways off. A June 6th 2024 release date for a Battle Pack depicting D-Day would be almost perfect.

Having reread your post I realize that you are using mechanized infantry (infantry carried in armored vehicles (Bren carriers in this case)). I don't think any of the videos I posted address mechanized infantry, so I'll do so here. You mostly use mechanized infantry the same way you would use light infantry (infantry not carried in armored vehicles), but with one additional consideration. Namely, when to keep them mounted in their armored vehicles and when to dismount them (I think your issue with this scenario may have been that you were trying to fight with your infantry mounted). The vehicles offer far greater mobility than movement on foot. When your infantry are mounted they can move very quickly from one position to the next without getting tired. But they are extremely vulnerable in their vehicles. A single hit from any anti-tank weapon can wipe out an entire infantry squad that's mounted in their vehicles. In addition, they can't use their weapons effectively from their vehicles. In the WW2 titles infantry may fire over the side of their halftracks, and in CMCW and the modern titles infantry in BMPs may fire their weapons from the gun ports, but this fire is very inaccurate and is barely effective even at short range. Even when your infantry are in a vehicle they can theoretically fire from, this fire is only useful as an emergency measure and is not something to be relied on. So the basic principle for using mechanized infantry is to move mounted and fight dismounted. Knowing when to dismount is the key. Dismount too early and you sacrifice mobility sooner than you needed to. Dismount too late and you are likely to suffer catastrophic casualties. In general, I find it's best to err on the side of dismounting a little too early. I think it's better for a squad to have to jog an extra hundred meters than to get wiped out in their halftrack. If I even suspect that I might be about to encounter the enemy, I dismount. I don't ever want to encounter the enemy with my infantry still mounted in their vehicles. Dismounting just in front of, or right on top of an enemy position can be a good idea if you are trying to press your attack with maximum aggression. But make sure the enemy is well suppressed before you attempt to do this. While I've been emphasizing how vulnerable the infantry are in their vehicles, one important caveat is mortars and artillery. They are significantly less vulnerable to artillery while mounted in armored vehicles. A direct hit from a stray artillery shell might still wipe out a whole squad, but if the barrage is intense enough that a direct hit is likely then you probably would have lost the whole platoon if it had been dismounted. Moving through an artillery barrage while mounted in armored vehicles is viable, both because the armor will protect the infantry from shell fragments, and because the vehicles can make it through the barrage more quickly than infantry on foot. If you can get the timing right a good tactic can be to charge an enemy position with your infantry mounted while the position is being hammered by artillery, aiming to dismount right on top of the position the moment the artillery lifts (risky, since if you get the timing wrong this could end very poorly). Whatever tactics you develop, the basics of mechanized infantry are: Mounted: Fast, less vulnerable to artillery, extremely vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, unable to fight. Dismounted: Slow, vulnerable to artillery, less vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, able to fight.